Author: modeststeam

One-Child Policy Changes Tradition: Aging [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

Post time 2007-1-10 10:31:50 |Display all floors

I am not worried by the Ageing Population problem, hehe

because when we are chatting here at this momenet (today), hundreds of new babies are being  "churned out" in the huge expanse of China's interior rural areas (mostly the underdeveloped & "traditionalist" mindset strong countryside).  maybe, developed cities like Shanghai and Beijing have less and less new-borns, (because the middle-class couples opting to have one or no kids at all),  Nationwide, it won't be a sudden drastic drought of supply of kids, at all.   And, sure, the Government needs to be better prepared for a natually growing Old people in this country ( as life keeps improving, we are to live longer), and  replenish funds to the welfare network.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2007-1-10 13:50:46 |Display all floors

one child policy, one right but not perfect one

China is a developing country with a largest number of people. There are about over 1.6 billion people now although the one-child policy  has been implementing for more than 30 years. Prior to the one child policy , there is no limitation policy carried out to control population in China . You know, there is old traditional notion pervading in China,  namely you will be more lucky, affluent and stronger if you have more children. As a result,common people tried their best to give birth to children as possible as they can, no matter how poor they are and how hard they lead a living, how awful the accessible education is. Belive it or not, My father have 8 compatriotes, so does my mother.Chinese couple would not mean to stop brooding untill they can not be able to any longer. Even people's admission to what comes naturally make difference with striving for children. According to a suvey , the average children per woman in developed country is about 1.3. This number is very close to that of current China. In another word, the average children of  one couple in China is approximately 1.3 too. Why? isn't that we are implementing one-child policy? Yes, it is .

The expression of one child policy is not totally accurate . The policy is enforced desperately strictly in urban while it is different in rural. In rural area, one couple would be admitted to give birth to a second child if the first child is a girl. Again, in minority areas, they can procreate more for one couple.

To me, I don't think the one child policy is perfect . It has been imposing too much stress on ordinary people who have only one child while they themselves are not rich enough, especially under the condition of a very weak insurance system in China. They all have been worrying about who can succeed to their parents' spirit once if the single child die and who they can resort to when they get old. In such a county who has a long history of recreation custom , people have to bear more.

One child policy is a right one in large. You can imagine the disaster caused by overloaded population in China. If we don't commit ourselves into controlling the population , we are bound to have to live in the abyss of suffering.

[ Last edited by hbguo98 at 2007-1-10 01:53 PM ]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2007-1-11 06:34:56 |Display all floors
Another idea--how about some sort of monetary incentive for couples opting to adopt a child instead of have one of their own?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2007-1-11 09:34:01 |Display all floors
Originally posted by chinadaily at 10-1-2007 02:31
Nationwide, it won't be a sudden drastic drought of supply of kids, at all

An aging population isn't so much a shortage of children, as having too many old people to take care of. It's estimated that by 2020 around 1/6th of the population will be 60+. By 2050 it will be 1/4. Though the country's wealth will increase, the problem is that so will people's expectations. So although it would be fairly simply to pay for today's elderly with a 2050 government budget, a lot more will have to be spent for each person by the middle of the century.

So it's necessary to come up with new ways of dealing with this, especially given that in China the family traditionally helped look after the old. You can't do that with only one child when they're married and have their own child, work, etc to think about. I guess mandatory pension schemes for most employees may be the only way forward, though they would have to contribute as well, with only the very poorest receiving large amounts of social security in their old age.
"People are the water, the ruler is the boat; water can carry the boat, but it can also capsize it."

-- Li Shimin (2nd Tang Emperor, "Taizong")

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2007-1-12 11:32:19 |Display all floors
It's not a bad policy, think about India
It's not a good pollicy, think about my kid, he or she will be lonely.
[url=]Business Giftware[/url]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2007-1-13 05:13:42 |Display all floors

I posted about this two years ago

I posted about this two years ago....

Aging is a problem across the world.
All countries have had a tradition of taking care of their elderly.  In an ever more individual driven world this is becoming problematic.   Due to China's one child policy this is doubly so.....

potentially one man with one wife (if he can find her) and one child and up to 4 granparents.
As the other poster noted with greater competition for social resources and funding, and with the ever  lessening role of SOE's in that process there are great tasks to accomplish by 2050.

I wish China well.  As we search for money, let's not forget our families.  We owe more to them then money to our pocket.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2007-1-13 09:50:25 |Display all floors
Seems, at least from some of the responses, that the existing One-Child Policy is still widely misunderstood.

The existing One-Child Policy is not "universal" in China but is only in relation to members of the Han majority and only to those living in urban centers.

This is one of the main reasons it is not working as it should.

Add in the ability for families to pay extra - to cover the added stress on the infrastructure such as education, housing, resources etc. - eliminates much of the effectiveness. If that allowance were cancelled, that would some way to making it more effective, but it is still not going to solve the main problem...the rural community being allowed any number of children.

Over the first couple of decades of the One-Child Policy, it was slightly more effective, but with the dramatic increase in disposable income of, especially, urban residents, the mistakes of families having more than one child and just covering the extra stress on society by an "advance" payment is making a type of mockery of the idea.

The increase in the population in rural areas is adding to the stress as the children of those rural communities migrate into the urban areas - areas that are increasingly unable to provide housing, employment and security to the new levels required by the influx of migrants.

I agree that legislating a "No-Child" policy wouldn't work, but a social movement does have potential for success.

I don't accept the argument regarding the elderly - that is like saying there is no need to clean the environment because the areas and industries still polluting the environment would suffer if the environment were cleaner.

So, either make the One-Child Policy more standard by removing the "option" of advance payment clause and adding the policy to the rural areas of the country and making it truly effective; or drop it in favor of a one-generation, socially-driven, NO Child Policy.

Adding in the option that adopting a child - legally and only from government adoption centers - is allowed and encouraged, is an excellent way to also give homes to the many children without homes.

Only one generation and the population could be appreciably reduced.

As to the "natural" urge...of course that exists, but just because it exists is not a good enough reason to not try and implement a different policy. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" as Spock said, and in this case, with a social policy making social pariahs out of those with young children, the focus could be more on "the many" and the selfish "one" - or two of course since it takes two - will find that social acceptance and being part of the community is more valuable than their selfishness.

Hey, just a topic for discussion.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email:
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.